The Main Event is Our Future

26519762728_e1b582cce7_b

DSC_8233.jpg by bobosh_t is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

With the daily dose of atrocities, it’s hard to get beyond us versus them.   “My people are not like that.”   Get rid of the bad guys and everything will be just fine.  Except that it’s not so easy.

It’s a lot easier to produce factions than policies, and this is a moment that cries out for serious answers.  We’re so numbed by roadblock issues—inequality, declining opportunity, rise of authoritarianism, unstoppable climate change—that we get depressed about the future too.  But the issues are there to be solved.

This isn’t an appeal to bipartisanship, because there is no reason to think that’s the point.  The crisis is not of compromise but of ideas.  So instead this is an appeal to resist chest-beating and work on the issues.  The problems will still be there, impeachment or no impeachment.

If we want to fight climate change, we should stop talking about morality and come up with specific plans.  That’s not trivial, and bad plans can make matters worse—certainly in missed opportunity.  Green New Deal isn’t a plan yet, and spending money on that scale means we better be clear enough about what we’re doing to avoid corruption even among the good guys.   Similarly if we want to improve education we need a plan with funding and a way to get more people involved.   Fundamental problems such as inequality or lack of opportunity are even harder—we need both individual prosperity and national growth.  Detail matters.  The country needs specific proposals and a serious dialog to move forward.  In this Elizabeth Warren’s many proposals are important whether you agree with her answers or not—they are specific enough so that we can start having confidence that this is a job we can get done.

One thing that is certainly true is that we can’t continue denying reality or the interconnectedness of the world we live in.

Any new President will have plenty to fix in sheer damage control.  The country has been weakened in many ways.  But we also have to think about this as a new beginning with bright prospects.  (A recent NYTimes piece was good on prospects though rather breezy on answers.)  It is not a given that 19th century level inequality is a fact of life or that we can’t be expected do much of anything for the common good.  Since there’s no shortage of either money or opportunity, what we’re faced with is the difficulty of getting to where we ought to be.

After World War II, the US led the world into becoming a much more equitable and prosperous place.  That challenge is again on the table.

The Tariff Tax

dollars_2363517834_261b56443d

As many economists have noted, tariffs are not a sneaky way to get free money from foreigners.  They are a tax paid by all of us in higher prices, and that’s exactly what has happened with the Trump tariffs to date.

Since a tariff is a tax, it’s worth thinking about what kind of a tax it is.  We’ll be specific.

For this note we’ll restrict ourselves to the two biggest ones:  the new Chinese tariff of 25% on $250 B of annual inputs and the new Mexican tariffs, scheduled (as Trump says) to reach 25% on all Mexican imports ($346 B annually) by October.  This costs a total of .25 x ($250 B + $346 B) = $149 B annually.

At first glance this doesn’t seem too bad, since aggregate annual income in the US is $13T, and $149 B /$13 T is about 1%.  But that’s the wrong comparison.  The primary impact here is on prices, which means we’re talking about consumptionnot income.  This is like a sales tax.   Consumption is much more evenly distributed than income, so lower incomes pay more.

It is a truism that the rich spend less of their income, because they don’t have to.  But in fact we can be specific.  Even if we throw out the highest 5% of incomes, the income distribution in this country is more than 3 times more inequitable than the consumption distribution.  What’s more, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a breakdown of consumption spending by decile segments of US income.  That is, for each 10% segment of the population—ordered by income—they give a percentage of total consumption spending.  These ten slowly-increasing percent values give a quantitative picture of what it means to say the rich spend less of their income:

4.1, 4.5, 6.1, 7.0, 7.8, 9.0, 10.5, 12.1, 15.1, 23.7

Going back to the $149 B of tariffs, this tells us how those tariff costs are allocated to the different segments of the population:  4.1 % to the lowest tenth of income, 4.5 % to the next tenth, and so forth.  Further, since the total number of households in the country is 141 million, we can even say something about how much households in each segment will actually have to pay.  For the lowest segment this is

$149 B x (0.04) / 14.1 M = $433

The calculation is the same for each segment, using the percent values just listed.  In addition the Labor Statistics figures also include the average income level associated with each population segment.  That lets us directly compare Trump’s much-touted tax cuts with tariff costs.  Putting it all together we get the following chart

Population segment Percent of consumption Average income Tariff cost Tax cut
1 4.1 $6,000 $433 0
2 4.5 $16,000 $475 $50
3 6.1 $25,000 $644 $180
4 7.0 $35,000 $738 $360
5 7.8 $45,000 $824 $570
6 9.0 $60,000 $951 $870
7 10.5 $75,000 $1110 $1310 (combined in source)
8 12.1 $100,000 $1268
9 15.1 $130,000 $1596 Not in source
10 23.7 $250,000 $2504 Not in source

What we see is that the Chinese and Mexican tariffs alone overwhelm the Trump tax cuts for 60% of the US population (and come close for another 20%).

Conclusion:  Tariffs are a serious and regressive tax.  Since they are also an expensive and uncertain way to create jobs (at $800-900K each), this is no silver bullet.  And that’s before we even think about retaliation.

For Sanity on China

china_720951

What are our stated objectives with China?

  • We want to bring them into the world economic system on appropriate terms of fair play.
  • We want access to their markets according to those rules of fair play.
  • We want protection for our businesses and workers, also according to those rules of fair play.

Those are perfectly normal and achievable objectives.  We can be specific about how to get there, and the probability of success is high.

What are our actual objectives in the trade war?

Trump has been clear about this in both words and deeds.  Our trade war is to assure that China will never be able to challenge our technological, economic, and military dominance.

Those are not the same as the stated objectives (although the press seems confused about the difference).  They are objectives for a real war.  And if you’re going to fight a real war—with bullets or with tariffs—you had better be sure you’re going to win, or the results won’t be pretty.

Problem #1:  We don’t run the world.  We are 18% or Chinese exports, same as the EU.  We’ve gone out of the way not to have an alliance with the EU on this issue.  (It’s worth noting that the EU already has a far lower balance of payments deficit with China than we do.)  The Chinese domestic economy is already larger than ours.  We can inflict pain, but we can’t put them out of business.

Problem #2:  China’s technological and military strength is not just because they’re stealing from us.  That genie is already out of the bottle, and it is an imperialist delusion to believe we can keep them poor and dumb.

Problem #3:  We’ve converted an issue of international good behavior into a matter of domination.  Without boots on the ground there’s no way in hell we’re going to enforce an agreement of subjugation.  (The distinction is not a gray area—we’re either thinking about rules we’d be willing to apply to ourselves or not.)

What’s going to happen?

The Chinese will go build their (very large) part of the world without us.   We will have no effective access to their markets or their technology (already today technology is a two-way street).  We’ll be back in a cold war with all that entails in risk, mutual hostility, military spending, and stunted world growth.

What should we do?

  1. The first step is to cool the chest-beating jingoism. (China is in fact a mixed bag for the US economy.) That way we can at least recognize the difference between the two types of objectives.  It’s the only way to behave rationally.
  2. If what we want is a correct and viable world order, then that means we need an alliance supporting our view. Ultimately this should end up in the WTO, but a first step is to codify what we want and assemble wide support.  That will add both carrot and stick to achieve our objectives.  The Business Roundtable of corporate CEO’s was explicit about this from the beginning.
  3. History shows that the best way to avoid war is mutual commerce. That means establishing rules we can all abide by.
  4. If we’re worried that the Chinese are going to take over anyway, then the best thing to do is to recognize and play to our strengths. Overall the odds are well in our favor.   The fact is that we’ve been here before.  Not so many years ago the perceived technology threat was Japan.  In China, Xi’s thirst for control makes him an enemy of what made for China’s success.

History is full of disastrous, inconclusive wars that no one wins.  Trade wars too.  We’re not so weak that we have to blunder our way into this one.

Software

242729766_cc4d4f354b_b_google

This note is a follow-on the previous item about prosperity.  Software was mentioned there, but it deserves its own focus.

There isn’t enough discussion of software businesses.   That’s an important gap, because it lets people fantasize away the changes that are taking place in employment.  Without that discussion we can blame just about anything on globalization, and then believe tariffs will fix it.  Or we can talk about automation, and still think about unions and incremental retraining as the answer.  But that’s wishful thinking.

Software businesses are different.  There is essentially nobody doing production, so there is essentially no incremental cost of production.  Product cost is research and development.  As we noted before that tends toward monopoly businesses that are hard to tax and regulate.

We also mentioned the effect on employment.  It’s not that these companies don’t hire people.  Apple and Google are getting up toward 100,000 people.  But the vast majority of the jobs, well beyond development, require a high degree of technical sophistication.   Even sales and low-level support must deal with the technical sophistication of the products.  In a company like Amazon, with close to 600,000 people, there is a rigid distinction between the sophistication of the good jobs in headquarters versus the hordes of people filling boxes.  Our current technology leaders are all software companies, with all that entails.

But they’re not the only ones.  Globalization and automation are essentially equivalent ways of dealing with non-core functions.  More and more companies can think of themselves as software companies, designing products that can be produced either by machines or some arms-length operation that might just as well be.  In this it is important to recognize that outsourcing is itself a technology area.  Growth in outsourcing reflects how much easier and more reliable it has become. Production becomes machine-like.  That trend is not going away.

There are several types of conclusions to be drawn here.

–  For businesses, the real money is to be made in staying on top of the heap.  That’s the software model.  It will continue to be the direction of business focus, and with it profit margins have proved substantial.

– For employment it means that we have to be realistic about where good jobs are going to be.  There are two types:

  1. There will be technically sophisticated jobs of many sorts. But all will require a sophisticated educational background. We cannot stint on education.
  2. There will be jobs that can’t be easily outsourced or automated. These can be significant in number, but not necessarily in traditional areas. Example areas are human interactions, such as healthcare, daycare, or personal services.  There is also infrastructure, which is largely outside of controlled, automatable environments and not easily moved offsite.  Much of this work will require government intervention to get done.

– We can’t expect things to just work out.   Full employment is not going to produce good jobs for everyone.   We are supposedly living in economic heaven—lowest unemployment in years—but wages still have grown only barely beyond inflation.  And in that, things are far worse at the bottom than at the top of the income scale.  Unions should be strengthened, but they can only do so much about technology (both automation and outsourcing).  And tariffs always sound good, but they are extremely expensive ways to create jobs and historically do more harm than good.

 

In this world, if we want to avoid a declining two-tiered society of haves and have-nots, we have to recognize the role of government—not just to protect people but for national success.

– We have to do better than the current hodge-podge support of education and infrastructure.  Both are critical to the good jobs of the future.  Both require government commitment.

– We have to produce a system of taxation and corporate governance that supports business success without starving that environment that feeds it.  As Apple (among many others) has shown, software profits can be moved anywhere to avoid taxes.  The latest tax changes have actually that easier.

– There are serious problems that are simply outside the scope of the private sector to fix.  The most obvious example is climate change, where we are not only ignoring not only the threat but also the business opportunities it presents.

– We have to understand roles for people in making it happen.

This isn’t actually radical.  It’s closer to the economy we had in the 1950’s and 60’s, when government supported education and research, and businesses reinvested earnings.  We just have to stop believing in good fairies.  There are no miracles solutions delivered by the private sector or anyone else.  We collectively have to provide the environment for both business success and the well-being of the population.

That is a big job, and we’d better start planning for it.  Heaven only helps those who help themselves.

Let’s Just Do Immigration

28693267654_b115c18e38_b

Now that Trump has decided that the target for the total number of immigrants is unchanged, why don’t we just fix immigration:

  • Family unification is a good thing, but it has taken too much of the total, now 70%.
  • It’s sensible that some fraction of immigrants should get in based on special capabilities or other demonstrable merit.  (It’s worth noting that the current system is actually not so bad in that respect.)
  • It’s also sensible to have some fraction of immigration that is not so constrained.  You never know who’s going to be a hero, and diversity has value.  Moreover past immigrants mostly came from places where they were denied opportunities for such merit.  So a lottery system has value too.

As a default, divide it up 1/3 for each and call it even.  Otherwise negotiate the limits for a while and then call it done.  (As an interesting variant, Canada handles family unification with relationship points in the merit index.)

Additionally:

  • We need to settle DACA once and for all, because there is no value to anyone in not doing it.  Since we’re talking about merit, these are upstanding, fully-adapted, English-speaking contributors.
  • For the rest of currently undocumented immigrants, we had a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in 2013.  That can still be a basis for work.  These people are almost all working and paying taxes.

This isn’t so hard.   It only takes the will to do it.

There remains the question of enforcement.  For that, the problem is that we’ve been postulating solutions without any serious analysis.   Politicians shouldn’t be arguing about this.  (Border control was never wild about the wall until they were told they”d better be.)  There needs to be an independent assessment of how money should be spent to enforce the law.

However one thing that is definite is that there is no excuse for mistreatment of desperate people looking to escape overwhelming problems for themselves or their families.  We can’t satisfy them all–immigration law is there to say who gets help–but that’s no excuse for treating them all as criminals or worse.

 

Losing by Bullying in China and Elsewhere

Most of us choose not to run our lives as bullies.  That’s not because we’re all so nice; it’s because being a bully is usually a bad option.  For one thing it’s precarious—the bully loses everything as soon as he’s not top dog.  And what’s worse is that it precludes other ways of getting things done.  The bully has nothing to offer but bluster.

The US has been the predominant world power since World War II, but we’ve generally chosen not to play the bully.  Instead we’ve used international institutions to enshrine our views as a kind of international rule of law.  That has been a very successful enterprise—no one wants to be odd man out.  And after 50 years we remain both the military and the economic powerhouse.  (How that filters down to the well-being of the population is another story.)

Recently however we’ve made the all-too-common mistake of believing our own propaganda.  We’re just too nice, and in our beneficence everyone is stealing from us.  For example NATO—which exists to make sure a Russian WW III is fought in Europe and not here—is now a case of wasting money to defend ungrateful allies.  The time has come to step out from behind the curtain and take all that we can get.

How have we been doing as a bully?  Let’s look at a few examples:

Iran

In Iran we’ve decided to take off the kid gloves and go for everything short of war.  The result thus far has been to strengthen the hard-liners in the government and to unite the population behind hatred of the US.  Initial steps have begun to resume nuclear weapons development—an effort that has strong support in the population as a whole.

Regime change remains unlikely, and even if it happens, it won’t be pro-US.  As for nuclear weapons, we’ve made North Korea a proof-positive of their value.

Venezuela

Trump administration high-handedness has intensified the ever-present fear of US domination—even among Maduro’s opponents.  That played a big part in the failure of the Guaidó uprising.

Arbitrary exercise of power makes us weaker.

China

This is currently the most consequential case.  We have legitimate grievances with China, but the situation is not so black and white, and it matters how we play it.

Our bullying approach began with tariffs before negotiation.  Then we chose to violate the our own trade agreements to go for an exclusive deal to benefit only us.  And we are unabashedly using the process to prevent China from challenging our dominance.  Finally we’re consumed with a feverish China bashing that has nothing with the reality of China’s effect on the US economywhich has many positives, and the negative effects don’t begin to compete with what we’ve done to ourselves.

There are two points worth emphasizing:

  1. The US represents 18% of Chinese exports, as does the EU. By making this an exclusive deal we lost half our leverage. That was a “get out of jail free” card for the Chinese. They didn’t have to worry about dividing the West, because we did it for them. (Not the only example of giving China exactly what they want.)
  2. We have dispensed with the idea that this is about international rules for fair trade. Instead this is strictly about what our national leverage can get us.  That’s not a great basis for compliance (particularly given history), and there are many ways that trade deals can fail to deliver.   Further, by setting arbitrary tariffs we’re striking a blow for protectionism, not open markets.  That’s the last thing we should be doing when a primary goal is access to a Chinese economy that is already larger than ours and growing faster.

The is another way to do this, and it was waiting to happen.  Within the WTO China is still classified as a developing country.  All parties recognize that needs to be renegotiated, which would have happened regardless of who was President.  The hand we were dealt was better leverage, better compliance, and no trade war.

There’s another way to look at this.  The following chart shows the kinds of items China exports to the US.

chinese_exports

It’s not just cheap widgets.  It’s the computer equipment that runs the software that is the basis for our economic strength.  The worst thing China could do to us is stop its exports.  So what do we really want?  In some order, we want access to the Chinese market, we want a say in how China competes in the rest of the world, and we want to address intellectual property theft.

We have good means of addressing all of these, but bullying China isn’t one of them.  A trade war is counterproductive for the first two, which is why we created the WTO.  For the third, we now have a common interest, and it’s worth noting that Chinese hacking has gone way up, since Trump declared economic war.

Bullying behavior may give a rush of power, but it’s no better for countries than for people.  It makes the world worsemost of all for US!

More To Say About China

16263374907_b92d8fb58b_z

This piece is a little broader in scope that our past posts about China.  That seems useful, since war-mongering in press coverage of China has put us all in blinders.  We’re not claiming here that the Chinese are angels, but there is a lot more to the story that needs to be discussed.

We start with a couple of basic points, of interest regardless of whether we consider China friend or foe:

  1. China is now the world’s biggest economy and is continuing to grow rapidly. Further its population is more than four times the US.  That has many consequences worth thinking about.
  2. China has built itself up from nothing to a world class challenger in many areas. This is not just—or even primarily—a case of “stealing from us”. It is imperative that we understand their example and what we can learn from it.

On the first point, it should be noted to begin with that while the Chinese economy is the biggest in the world, the country is so big that its per capita income is well-below Mexico.  A rising standard of living in China could drive growth in the rest of the world for quite some time.

That is a dramatic turnaround in what China means to the rest of the world.  It is also the reason why virtually everyone expects China’s trade relations to be renegotiated.  Opening China has moved from a largely theoretical matter (because there just wasn’t that much to be sold) to become the primary issue.

This is the time for negotiation, but it’s also a window of opportunity we can easily miss.  In this, as we’ve noted before, a unilateral trade war is actually counter-productive. We’re defending protectionism, when the primary issue is open access to the Chinese market!  Further by insisting on a bilateral deal, we’re substantially reducing the leverage needed to make the deal a success.  The Business Roundtable of corporate CEO’s said as much prior to the start of current negotiations.  This isn’t about trade deficits; it’s about worldwide rules of fair trade going forward.

Trade negotiation, however, is not the only issue here.  US businesses have long had the luxury of focusing on the domestic market.   Economies of scale will now demand a less parochial view.  An obvious example is loosening of fuel economy standards.  That’s a concession to our automobile industry for the domestic market that will hurt international competitiveness.  Another example is 5G mobile equipment.  US vendors are behind the curve, because the domestic market has been fractured and slow-moving.

We are not doing our economy a favor by granting special favors (including tariffs) to domestic businesses.  That’s just perpetuating the idea that winning here is all it takes.  (Tariffs are also an unreliable and inefficient way of producing jobs.)

As for what we can learn from China, we give a few examples

– Government-sponsored R&D pays big benefits.  That is the single biggest contributor to the Chinese success.   They have created a world-class technological empire out of almost nothing.  Even the much-lamented Chinese technology theft is a non-trivial (if nefarious) accomplishment.  How many companies do a good job managing transitions of responsibility even for their own software?

We used to care about the government role in research too.  It was assumed in the good old days of the 50’s and 60’s. Now we have not only cut back on government R&D (Trump’s latest budget is a recent example), but with the current anti-science nostalgia we’re not even sure we want much to do with scientific progress.

– Education is an imperative.  It’s people who make for national success and we need them to be prepared for the jobs that will defend our national standard of living.  China has been ready to spend the money to make it happen.

– We should want to drive up the value chain.  Despite past history, the Chinese understand perfectly that price-competitive businesses are not the way to go.   Real wealth comes from dominant industries with the power to sell on content instead of price.  That’s what technology can deliver.  It’s simply not in the cards to believe past successes will just revive.

– All businesses need to embrace technology for success.  Even in the cost-sensitive outsourcing business, ease of interworking was an important factor in Chinese success.

– Finally (and paradoxically) a dynamic, decentralized economy is a real plus.  This may seem surprising in a list of lessons from China, but it’s strangely true.  The major impetus that kicked off the Chinese economic miracle was an accidental liberalization.  As a small opening, Chinese municipalities were allowed to run independent businesses once they reached their nationally-set production goals.  As it happened, these independent businesses took off and eventually marginalized the state-run enterprises.  Many morphed into successful private companies.  (Xi is now attempting to put that genie back in the bottle, with reemphasized state enterprises.)

We should never underestimate the value of the dynamism of the US economy.  But we had better be careful to understand what has really worked for us.  There has always been an important government role, and diversity mattered too.  In the Chinese example, success was only possible because government provided the environment, particularly education and infrastructure, for the businesses to grow.  That’s precisely what worked for us establish US dominance in the post-war years.   In general, prosperity requires both the environment and the opportunity to achieve success.

 

All that being said, what can we say about dealing with China?  A few guidelines:

We are misled if we think “enemy” is all we need to know.  China is an important factor for both good and bad in the world economy.  They were an important help in the efforts that prevented a depression in 2008.  They can be a major locomotive in the world economy going forward.  They contribute to the worldwide development of science and technology—which makes us all richer.  They recognize the importance of climate change.  It is our task to make that all work for us.

To get there we need to treat the Chinese like any other adversary—we should deal with them from strength and look for mutual advantages.

It is not productive simply to dictate, with the idea that we can shut them down by denying them access to our market.  We represent 18% of their export market and much less of their total economy.  That’s plenty to cause trouble, but not enough to dictate, and in any case real pain would hurt us as well.  Further, if we want success in their market, there has to be ongoing mutual self-interest—no signed document will do it.   And there’s a historical side of this as well:  China endured some of the worst of western imperialism in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  That memory lingers, and we are not served by recalling it with our behavior.  Mutual advantage is much better than antagonistic isolation.

We need to extend the rules for fairness in international commerce through the WTO.  As noted earlier all parties recognize this has to happen, and we have historically led such initiatives.  We have twice the leverage in cooperating with the EU (also 18% of Chinese exports), and we avoid the hypocrisy of endorsing protectionism in the argument for opening of their markets.

Matters such as intellectual property protection and theft should be solvable problems, in part because the Chinese now have much to defend as well.  It’s not for nothing that Huawei is well ahead of the curve in 5G development.   Chinese universities are now high on the list of international institutions (even though Western ones still have cachet in China!), and the Chinese are acquiring patents like everyone else.  It’s also true, if seldom noted, that Chinese computer hacking decreased significantly by the end of the Obama years and went way up when Trump declared economic war.

The military installations in the South China Sea are a serious problem, but the fact is that the great majority of Chinese imports and exports pass that way—so it’s not surprising they’re worried about it.  We make that worry all the greater by declaring that it is legitimate to use all resources at our disposal to get the Chinese to do what we want.  The only real solution is some kind of freedom of the seas regional agreement that all parties can have confidence in.

Human rights violations are also important, and we have to keep those issues alive.  It’s hard to know how far we’ll be able to get.  The one thing you can say is that we shouldn’t be too quick to use Xi a stand-in for China as a whole.  We’ve already noted Xi is a throw-back (a “princeling” heir to the Maoist past), so perhaps there is hope for better later.  There are many conclusions to be drawn about us if you take Trump as a stand-in for everything American.

In the end the point is to treat China like any other independent nation.  China as “enemy” has real roots, but also large doses of domestic politics (China has been a convenient excuse for our own misdeeds) and “yellow peril” racism.  China needs to work properly in the international system of trade and ideally also in international security agreements.  Any efforts to avoid a new set of arms races will have to involve them.

Vigilance is fine, but there is at least the potential of much to build on.

A Story that Ought to be Told

6262125702_a086dd49f1_z

It’s natural enough that different factions of the Democratic Party see things differently.  But we’ve got to stop letting the Republican Party off the hook.

  1. Bill Clinton may have let China into the WTO, but he was not around to see or act on China’s behavior. Essentially 100% of job losses occurred under Bush, either directly or as a result of the 2008 crash.  Obama had no opportunity to do anything:  his first two years were spent avoiding a depression, and after that the Republican Congress shut down government.
  2. That Republican Congress has never received its deserved public exposure. Its stated objective was non-cooperation with Obama on all issues,.  They understood perfectly what stimulus is good for, and they made sure it didn’t happen—with the proven-bogus “balanced-budget amendment”.   The Republican Party deliberately kept the country poor for the 2016 election
  3. On meat and potatoes issues Trump is not a rebel, he’s a Republican. His primary effect on the economy was through the tax cuts. Those were properly the Koch organization tax cuts—delivered as ordered to the primary donors to the Republican Party.

It’s not wrong to say that both parties share blame for the growth of inequality and such—but not in equal measure.  The position of the “Trump base” would have been quite different if Obama had not been denied all opportunity to act.  A Clinton Presidency would have worked on education, healthcare, and climate change instead of the Koch tax cuts.

Clinton was reluctant to criticize the Republican Congress, because she thought ordinary Republicans might support her (Comey fixed that!).  We seem to be making a similar mistake by excusing Republicans in the guise of “everybody did it until now”.   We’re letting Trump be the hero who brought it all to the fore.

On issues Trump is a Republican.  Republicans produced the 2008 crash, the Iraq war, the drastically increased inequality, and the current polarization of society.  Democrats fix things.  Trump has made it harder, but we can get it done.